Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input. : :

This was a good concept to begin with but as big corporate bankers and businessmen got together to divide and conquer the U.S. citizens to force them into changing the corporate laws and give corporations the same rights as what one individual person has, it is no longer applicable. That's because we are now fighting for and protecting corporations instead of individual U.S. citizens.

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input. : :

This was a good concept to begin with but as big corporate bankers and businessmen got together to divide and conquer the U.S. citizens to force them into changing the corporate laws and give corporations the same rights as what one individual person has, it is no longer applicable. That's because we are now fighting for and protecting corporations instead of individual U.S. citizens.

I get the impression you are viewing this as the collective Constitution. The OP individualizes a single amendment, the 13th. Of course, the Constitution was/is a good thing for the nation, but I don't believe it's no longer relevant. Individual rights are still alive, if not more muted than in the past. Individual expression of speech, religion, press, ownership of arms, prohibition of outright slavery, voting rights, etc. All of these are constitutionally protected rights. It's not as if shifts in politics have actualized the overarching threat to individual rights, they have simply been more suppressed.

My central thought, and question, is in regards to the 13th amendment, and how it correlates to conscription and compulsory government service programs.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input. : :

This was a good concept to begin with but as big corporate bankers and businessmen got together to divide and conquer the U.S. citizens to force them into changing the corporate laws and give corporations the same rights as what one individual person has, it is no longer applicable. That's because we are now fighting for and protecting corporations instead of individual U.S. citizens.

I get the impression you are viewing this as the collective Constitution. The OP individualizes a single amendment, the 13th. Of course, the Constitution was/is a good thing for the nation, but I don't believe it's no longer relevant. Individual rights are still alive, if not more muted than in the past. Individual expression of speech, religion, press, ownership of arms, prohibition of outright slavery, voting rights, etc. All of these are constitutionally protected rights. It's not as if shifts in politics have actualized the overarching threat to individual rights, they have simply been more suppressed.

My central thought, and question, is in regards to the 13th amendment, and how it correlates to conscription and compulsory government service programs. : :

I understand the 13th amendment but the U.S. citizens used to be small businessmen and farmers who collectively needed protection by the Constitution to keep their lifestyle free from excessive taxation and oppression by the rich who set up corporate banking in Europe and corporate business. However, that all changed when these rich people divided up the U.S. citizens into two party systems to enslave them with deception and political tricks to get the laws changed for the purpose to gain wealth off of their labor. It took many years but the rich finally got the laws changed to make their corporations an individual person with all the rights of a person. This is the reason many citizens are now slaves of the rich again by paying high taxes and becoming poorer and poorer with no government to protect them from these oppressors.

Young citizens do not understand what happened since the U.S. Constitution was signed by free people who rejected British taxation and corporate laws.

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input. : :

This was a good concept to begin with but as big corporate bankers and businessmen got together to divide and conquer the U.S. citizens to force them into changing the corporate laws and give corporations the same rights as what one individual person has, it is no longer applicable. That's because we are now fighting for and protecting corporations instead of individual U.S. citizens.

I get the impression you are viewing this as the collective Constitution. The OP individualizes a single amendment, the 13th. Of course, the Constitution was/is a good thing for the nation, but I don't believe it's no longer relevant. Individual rights are still alive, if not more muted than in the past. Individual expression of speech, religion, press, ownership of arms, prohibition of outright slavery, voting rights, etc. All of these are constitutionally protected rights. It's not as if shifts in politics have actualized the overarching threat to individual rights, they have simply been more suppressed.

My central thought, and question, is in regards to the 13th amendment, and how it correlates to conscription and compulsory government service programs. : :

I understand the 13th amendment but the U.S. citizens used to be small businessmen and farmers who collectively needed protection by the Constitution to keep their lifestyle free from excessive taxation and oppression by the rich who set up corporate banking in Europe and corporate business.

Indeed. And they still deserve this protection. Economic freedom is vital to the success of a market economy and the sustenance of our nation.

However, that all changed when these rich people divided up the U.S. citizens into two party systems to enslave them with deception and political tricks to get the laws changed for the purpose to gain wealth off of their labor.

Eh, I don't necessarily agree. It's just as necessary now, if not more so, than it has been.

It took many years but the rich finally got the laws changed to make their corporations an individual person with all the rights of a person. This is the reason many citizens are now slaves of the rich again by paying high taxes and becoming poorer and poorer with no government to protect them from these oppressors.

I somewhat agree.

Young citizens do not understand what happened since the U.S. Constitution was signed by free people who rejected British taxation and corporate laws.

I realize fully the degradation of our society, but that does not justify doing away with it completely.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input. : :

This was a good concept to begin with but as big corporate bankers and businessmen got together to divide and conquer the U.S. citizens to force them into changing the corporate laws and give corporations the same rights as what one individual person has, it is no longer applicable. That's because we are now fighting for and protecting corporations instead of individual U.S. citizens.

I get the impression you are viewing this as the collective Constitution. The OP individualizes a single amendment, the 13th. Of course, the Constitution was/is a good thing for the nation, but I don't believe it's no longer relevant. Individual rights are still alive, if not more muted than in the past. Individual expression of speech, religion, press, ownership of arms, prohibition of outright slavery, voting rights, etc. All of these are constitutionally protected rights. It's not as if shifts in politics have actualized the overarching threat to individual rights, they have simply been more suppressed.

My central thought, and question, is in regards to the 13th amendment, and how it correlates to conscription and compulsory government service programs. : :

I understand the 13th amendment but the U.S. citizens used to be small businessmen and farmers who collectively needed protection by the Constitution to keep their lifestyle free from excessive taxation and oppression by the rich who set up corporate banking in Europe and corporate business.

Indeed. And they still deserve this protection. Economic freedom is vital to the success of a market economy and the sustenance of our nation.

However, that all changed when these rich people divided up the U.S. citizens into two party systems to enslave them with deception and political tricks to get the laws changed for the purpose to gain wealth off of their labor.

Eh, I don't necessarily agree. It's just as necessary now, if not more so, than it has been.

It took many years but the rich finally got the laws changed to make their corporations an individual person with all the rights of a person. This is the reason many citizens are now slaves of the rich again by paying high taxes and becoming poorer and poorer with no government to protect them from these oppressors.

I somewhat agree.

Young citizens do not understand what happened since the U.S. Constitution was signed by free people who rejected British taxation and corporate laws.

I realize fully the degradation of our society, but that does not justify doing away with it completely. : :

I'm only pointing out what happened since the U.S. Constitution took effect. No society is free from inequality of wealth. There are always greedy power hungry people in every society who will enslave the rest of the people with laws. A totally free man only needs to eat, sleep peacefully and wear clothes appropriate to the weather. God's law is enough for a man like that.

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input. : :

This was a good concept to begin with but as big corporate bankers and businessmen got together to divide and conquer the U.S. citizens to force them into changing the corporate laws and give corporations the same rights as what one individual person has, it is no longer applicable. That's because we are now fighting for and protecting corporations instead of individual U.S. citizens.

I get the impression you are viewing this as the collective Constitution. The OP individualizes a single amendment, the 13th. Of course, the Constitution was/is a good thing for the nation, but I don't believe it's no longer relevant. Individual rights are still alive, if not more muted than in the past. Individual expression of speech, religion, press, ownership of arms, prohibition of outright slavery, voting rights, etc. All of these are constitutionally protected rights. It's not as if shifts in politics have actualized the overarching threat to individual rights, they have simply been more suppressed.

My central thought, and question, is in regards to the 13th amendment, and how it correlates to conscription and compulsory government service programs. : :

I understand the 13th amendment but the U.S. citizens used to be small businessmen and farmers who collectively needed protection by the Constitution to keep their lifestyle free from excessive taxation and oppression by the rich who set up corporate banking in Europe and corporate business.

Indeed. And they still deserve this protection. Economic freedom is vital to the success of a market economy and the sustenance of our nation.

However, that all changed when these rich people divided up the U.S. citizens into two party systems to enslave them with deception and political tricks to get the laws changed for the purpose to gain wealth off of their labor.

Eh, I don't necessarily agree. It's just as necessary now, if not more so, than it has been.

It took many years but the rich finally got the laws changed to make their corporations an individual person with all the rights of a person. This is the reason many citizens are now slaves of the rich again by paying high taxes and becoming poorer and poorer with no government to protect them from these oppressors.

I somewhat agree.

Young citizens do not understand what happened since the U.S. Constitution was signed by free people who rejected British taxation and corporate laws.

I realize fully the degradation of our society, but that does not justify doing away with it completely. : :

I'm only pointing out what happened since the U.S. Constitution took effect.

And that is fine.

No society is free from inequality of wealth.

True. That doesn't necessitate that it be a major issue, though.

There are always greedy power hungry people in every society who will enslave the rest of the people with laws.

Enslavement takes on many forms, and I suppose what you're asserting is that conscription is one of them?

A totally free man only needs to eat, sleep peacefully and wear clothes appropriate to the weather. God's law is enough for a man like that.

Fair enough, though there are benefits to government that anarchism cannot help.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input. : :

This was a good concept to begin with but as big corporate bankers and businessmen got together to divide and conquer the U.S. citizens to force them into changing the corporate laws and give corporations the same rights as what one individual person has, it is no longer applicable. That's because we are now fighting for and protecting corporations instead of individual U.S. citizens.

I get the impression you are viewing this as the collective Constitution. The OP individualizes a single amendment, the 13th. Of course, the Constitution was/is a good thing for the nation, but I don't believe it's no longer relevant. Individual rights are still alive, if not more muted than in the past. Individual expression of speech, religion, press, ownership of arms, prohibition of outright slavery, voting rights, etc. All of these are constitutionally protected rights. It's not as if shifts in politics have actualized the overarching threat to individual rights, they have simply been more suppressed.

My central thought, and question, is in regards to the 13th amendment, and how it correlates to conscription and compulsory government service programs. : :

I understand the 13th amendment but the U.S. citizens used to be small businessmen and farmers who collectively needed protection by the Constitution to keep their lifestyle free from excessive taxation and oppression by the rich who set up corporate banking in Europe and corporate business.

Indeed. And they still deserve this protection. Economic freedom is vital to the success of a market economy and the sustenance of our nation.

However, that all changed when these rich people divided up the U.S. citizens into two party systems to enslave them with deception and political tricks to get the laws changed for the purpose to gain wealth off of their labor.

Eh, I don't necessarily agree. It's just as necessary now, if not more so, than it has been.

It took many years but the rich finally got the laws changed to make their corporations an individual person with all the rights of a person. This is the reason many citizens are now slaves of the rich again by paying high taxes and becoming poorer and poorer with no government to protect them from these oppressors.

I somewhat agree.

Young citizens do not understand what happened since the U.S. Constitution was signed by free people who rejected British taxation and corporate laws.

I realize fully the degradation of our society, but that does not justify doing away with it completely. : :

I'm only pointing out what happened since the U.S. Constitution took effect.

And that is fine.

No society is free from inequality of wealth.

True. That doesn't necessitate that it be a major issue, though.

There are always greedy power hungry people in every society who will enslave the rest of the people with laws.

Enslavement takes on many forms, and I suppose what you're asserting is that conscription is one of them?

A totally free man only needs to eat, sleep peacefully and wear clothes appropriate to the weather. God's law is enough for a man like that.

Fair enough, though there are benefits to government that anarchism cannot help. : :

There hasn't been a government yet that can sustain power over it's people. There are always a few oppressed people who rise up and take over where the government left off. Like the Vatican that took the power and control from the Roman government.

At 4/26/2016 3:09:02 AM, musicalone wrote:There hasn't been a government yet that can sustain power over it's people. There are always a few oppressed people who rise up and take over where the government left off. Like the Vatican that took the power and control from the Roman government.

There has never been a successful anarchist society, either. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the OP.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input.

In the terms and conditions of being a citizen you are required to kill commies if the government tells you to do it.

Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

At 4/26/2016 3:09:02 AM, musicalone wrote:There hasn't been a government yet that can sustain power over it's people. There are always a few oppressed people who rise up and take over where the government left off. Like the Vatican that took the power and control from the Roman government.

There has never been a successful anarchist society, either. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the OP. : :

No. It's not irrelevant to the OP. The 13th amendment isn't being accepted by the rich who work hard at dominating the rest of the U.S. citizens. The original Constitution had laws pertaining to banking and corporations that the rich British folks didn't like. They didn't care about the 13th amendment or the laws pertaining to state banks and the 7 year corporation laws.

The draft is involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude unless as punishment for a crime is unconstitutional. There is no exception for involuntary military servitude.

Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

At 4/26/2016 4:14:49 AM, PetersSmith wrote:In the terms and conditions of being a citizen you are required to kill commies if the government tells you to do it.

And where exactly can one find a list of the "terms and conditions of being a citizen"?

Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

What social contract? Where? There's an actual contract with the list of "terms and conditions of being a citizen"? I would love to actually see it, instead of just taking the word of some liberal living in D.C.

Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

Conscription is an outdated concept. Originally, it was linked to voting rights. However, women have never had to register.

It is entirely unacceptable that the rights of women come from God, but mine come from government. Conscription needs to either apply equally to both genders, or be abolished forever

We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input.

In order to understand why conscription (the draft) is acceptable and within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, one must start from the origins of the U.S. Constitution and it's early development. We all understand the constitution was drafted and accepted in our nation's infancy, when we were still figuring out our way.

Well, after the Revolutionary War, the president was granted the power to command the military forces of the U.S. (Commander In Chief). Problem was, although the framer's understood the need for a standing army, the Confederation government on the other hand, had decreased the count of the Continental Army to 700 men.

As we had so many items to address, so many bridges to build between the newly founded states, so many questions unanswered, even unasked; and certainly no standing finances to budget among other items; the framer's created Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, "The Army Clause" as a pivotal first step. This gave the government the ability to raise and support an army -- but only for a length of two years at a time. After two years, there is to be another vote to support or disband.

This time frame is key as the house members are up for reelection every two years. This means that if the people are not in approval and support of the direction of the raised army, they may vote in new representatives who may then deny to support the army further, effectively ordering it to disband.

Slavery is an involuntary and forced form of labor, against the person's will. As the people are in control of the future of said raised army at all times, it is not slavery.

Now, there are MANY more parts to this, but I am not going to detail things out here as it would be far too long for most to read. Just the court appearances from the ACLU alone for this over the years are tens of thousands of pages long....and I wish not to bore the readers :) I hope this is a solid foundation for your studies into this topic.

At 4/26/2016 11:58:11 AM, TN05 wrote:Conscription is an outdated concept. Originally, it was linked to voting rights. However, women have never had to register.

It is entirely unacceptable that the rights of women come from God, but mine come from government. Conscription needs to either apply equally to both genders, or be abolished forever

Conscription was not originally linked to voting rights, it has nothing to do with voting rights. Conscription has been around since the Revolutionary War my friend. Look up Continental Army, militia drafts.

The link it has to anything is the necessity for States to comply with the laws if they wish to continue receiving federal funding for theirs states. Any state may back out at any time if they so wish.

Women were never required to register for the draft as they were not allowed to fight in the infantry until late 2015. Seeing as how a draft is majority wise for infantry fighting, the pieces don't fit. However, they are now allowed to fight, and the military and government are testing the waters with that whole deal. If it should work out astronomically better than what is expected by even military women themselves, then the registration issue will be revisited.

Finally, you have to understand that the draft would only be instituted these days, if it were 100% necessary. As in China is invading the U.S. and we dont have the man power and guns to hold them back. All hands on deck or prepare to be violently conquered.

At 4/26/2016 11:58:11 AM, TN05 wrote:Conscription is an outdated concept. Originally, it was linked to voting rights. However, women have never had to register.

It is entirely unacceptable that the rights of women come from God, but mine come from government. Conscription needs to either apply equally to both genders, or be abolished forever

Conscription was not originally linked to voting rights, it has nothing to do with voting rights. Conscription has been around since the Revolutionary War my friend. Look up Continental Army, militia drafts.

You're wrong. Male rights have traditionally been linked to military service.

The link it has to anything is the necessity for States to comply with the laws if they wish to continue receiving federal funding for theirs states. Any state may back out at any time if they so wish.

Women were never required to register for the draft as they were not allowed to fight in the infantry until late 2015. Seeing as how a draft is majority wise for infantry fighting, the pieces don't fit. However, they are now allowed to fight, and the military and government are testing the waters with that whole deal. If it should work out astronomically better than what is expected by even military women themselves, then the registration issue will be revisited.

I don't care. Equal rights mean equal responsibilities. 50% of the population does not deserve more rights than the other 50%.

Finally, you have to understand that the draft would only be instituted these days, if it were 100% necessary. As in China is invading the U.S. and we dont have the man power and guns to hold them back. All hands on deck or prepare to be violently conquered.

We have more than enough soldiers for a prolonged conflict.

Would you not fight to save your home and family? I surely would.

If I were drafted, I would refuse to serve. The government has no right to send me to slaughter. If I want to join the military, I will.

We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years

At 4/26/2016 4:14:49 AM, PetersSmith wrote:In the terms and conditions of being a citizen you are required to kill commies if the government tells you to do it.

And where exactly can one find a list of the "terms and conditions of being a citizen"?

In your American soul. And you know if you're a true patriot if your heart beats to the Star Spangled Banner.

Sorry. I'm not dying for you.

Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

At 4/26/2016 4:59:41 PM, TN05 wrote:Male rights have traditionally been linked to military service.

Women want equality when it suits them, chivalry when it doesn't.

Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

At 4/26/2016 11:58:11 AM, TN05 wrote:Conscription is an outdated concept. Originally, it was linked to voting rights. However, women have never had to register.

It is entirely unacceptable that the rights of women come from God, but mine come from government. Conscription needs to either apply equally to both genders, or be abolished forever

Conscription was not originally linked to voting rights, it has nothing to do with voting rights. Conscription has been around since the Revolutionary War my friend. Look up Continental Army, militia drafts.

You're wrong. Male rights have traditionally been linked to military service.

Whoa! You're jumping tracks here friend. Where did male rights come from? And what do you mean male rights are linked to military service?

The link it has to anything is the necessity for States to comply with the laws if they wish to continue receiving federal funding for theirs states. Any state may back out at any time if they so wish.

Women were never required to register for the draft as they were not allowed to fight in the infantry until late 2015. Seeing as how a draft is majority wise for infantry fighting, the pieces don't fit. However, they are now allowed to fight, and the military and government are testing the waters with that whole deal. If it should work out astronomically better than what is expected by even military women themselves, then the registration issue will be revisited.

I don't care. Equal rights mean equal responsibilities. 50% of the population does not deserve more rights than the other 50%.

Equal rights and physical/genetic equality are two different things. Males and females are built WAY different and must be treated as such. You wouldn't force little Jimmy on his 12th birthday into the Octagon with Conor McGregor and claim equality now would you?

Finally, you have to understand that the draft would only be instituted these days, if it were 100% necessary. As in China is invading the U.S. and we dont have the man power and guns to hold them back. All hands on deck or prepare to be violently conquered.

We have more than enough soldiers for a prolonged conflict.

You just made my point. Selective Service is simply there in emergency.

Would you not fight to save your home and family? I surely would.

If I were drafted, I would refuse to serve. The government has no right to send me to slaughter. If I want to join the military, I will.

So if Chinese soldiers start marching down your streets in a military takeover, and the military called you to serve, to save your home, save your family; you would refuse?

Any proud American man called up to protect his nation and our friends and allies should be filled with pride to serve. Imagine what the world would be like today if those 12 million American young men refused to serve in WWII. This is a big problem with millennials and younger; there is no sense of American pride or duty to country. Americans are the luckiest people in the history of humanity in every sense, yet we take it for granted constantly. Young men and women these days just seem to want something, anything to complain about.

There is not a single nation on the planet, greater than America. But for some reason we act as though we live in Tiananman Square 1989. Let me tell you this: Go outside, breathe the fresh air, grab some clean water from your tap, look around at the freedoms and luxuries that even the most poverty stricken Americans enjoy. Then sit down under a nice green tree, close your eyes and feel nice and safe, then ponder why it is that you are so angry that in America, if you have male reproductive organs, you use the darn men's room.

At 4/26/2016 7:25:28 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Any proud American man called up to protect his nation and our friends and allies should be filled with pride to serve. Imagine what the world would be like today if those 12 million American young men refused to serve in WWII. This is a big problem with millennials and younger; there is no sense of American pride or duty to country. Americans are the luckiest people in the history of humanity in every sense, yet we take it for granted constantly. Young men and women these days just seem to want something, anything to complain about.

They wouldn't have needed to serve, except for the fact that other countries brainwashed men to do the same thing. The common soldier never wins anything if he wins the war. Only the people at the top win. The common soldier is just cannon fodder. So millions of men should just fight each other because "leaders" from both sides want to play Risk in real life.

Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

At 4/26/2016 11:58:11 AM, TN05 wrote:Conscription is an outdated concept. Originally, it was linked to voting rights. However, women have never had to register.

It is entirely unacceptable that the rights of women come from God, but mine come from government. Conscription needs to either apply equally to both genders, or be abolished forever

Conscription was not originally linked to voting rights, it has nothing to do with voting rights. Conscription has been around since the Revolutionary War my friend. Look up Continental Army, militia drafts.

You're wrong. Male rights have traditionally been linked to military service.

Whoa! You're jumping tracks here friend. Where did male rights come from? And what do you mean male rights are linked to military service?

Look it up.

The link it has to anything is the necessity for States to comply with the laws if they wish to continue receiving federal funding for theirs states. Any state may back out at any time if they so wish.

Women were never required to register for the draft as they were not allowed to fight in the infantry until late 2015. Seeing as how a draft is majority wise for infantry fighting, the pieces don't fit. However, they are now allowed to fight, and the military and government are testing the waters with that whole deal. If it should work out astronomically better than what is expected by even military women themselves, then the registration issue will be revisited.

I don't care. Equal rights mean equal responsibilities. 50% of the population does not deserve more rights than the other 50%.

Equal rights and physical/genetic equality are two different things. Males and females are built WAY different and must be treated as such. You wouldn't force little Jimmy on his 12th birthday into the Octagon with Conor McGregor and claim equality now would you?

If you want the same rights as me, you should have the same responsibilities.

Finally, you have to understand that the draft would only be instituted these days, if it were 100% necessary. As in China is invading the U.S. and we dont have the man power and guns to hold them back. All hands on deck or prepare to be violently conquered.

We have more than enough soldiers for a prolonged conflict.

You just made my point. Selective Service is simply there in emergency.

There is no emergency that would require it.

Would you not fight to save your home and family? I surely would.

If I were drafted, I would refuse to serve. The government has no right to send me to slaughter. If I want to join the military, I will.

So if Chinese soldiers start marching down your streets in a military takeover, and the military called you to serve, to save your home, save your family; you would refuse?

1) That isn't happening2) I would make the decision myself. I am not going to be forced to do anything.

Any proud American man called up to protect his nation and our friends and allies should be filled with pride to serve. Imagine what the world would be like today if those 12 million American young men refused to serve in WWII. This is a big problem with millennials and younger; there is no sense of American pride or duty to country. Americans are the luckiest people in the history of humanity in every sense, yet we take it for granted constantly. Young men and women these days just seem to want something, anything to complain about.

Lol. Baby boomers were so much better. They didn't burn draft cards and place their retirement on the backs of the next generation or anything.

There is not a single nation on the planet, greater than America. But for some reason we act as though we live in Tiananman Square 1989. Let me tell you this: Go outside, breathe the fresh air, grab some clean water from your tap, look around at the freedoms and luxuries that even the most poverty stricken Americans enjoy. Then sit down under a nice green tree, close your eyes and feel nice and safe, then ponder why it is that you are so angry that in America, if you have male reproductive organs, you use the darn men's room.

What does that have to do with infringing on people's rights?

We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years

At 4/26/2016 7:25:28 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:Any proud American man called up to protect his nation and our friends and allies should be filled with pride to serve. Imagine what the world would be like today if those 12 million American young men refused to serve in WWII. This is a big problem with millennials and younger; there is no sense of American pride or duty to country. Americans are the luckiest people in the history of humanity in every sense, yet we take it for granted constantly. Young men and women these days just seem to want something, anything to complain about.

They wouldn't have needed to serve, except for the fact that other countries brainwashed men to do the same thing. The common soldier never wins anything if he wins the war. Only the people at the top win. The common soldier is just cannon fodder. So millions of men should just fight each other because "leaders" from both sides want to play Risk in real life.

The Germans weren't brainwashed. To the contrary, they were a very intelligent people. Sadly though, by some insanely long shot odds, the universe fell into place in a manner that a butt hurt, weak little white supremacist managed to rule over a nation overflowing with little racists who all worked together to go on some kind of demon spawn rampage across Europe; destroying and annihilating everything, and everyone they came across.

Brainwashing does not exist, the CIA and KGB tried for almost 50 years to do it but never did. What does exist though....is EVIL...and we got a taste of pure hell fire evil back then. This is why conscription exists; to gather the strongest men of the world, when it seems the end of life as we know it is the only path in sight, and work together to ensure the survival of good; ridding ourselves of the oncoming plague.

At 4/26/2016 1:51:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:Military conscription, the draft, and other such compulsory service to the nation has been a topic of much debate and controversy. However, it seems to be glossed over as acceptable and generally done for the good of the nation. Personally, I oppose conscription in favor of volunteerism as a general rule, but that's not necessarily pertinent to the purpose of the OP. My question is: does conscription violate the thirteenth amendment, and if so, how has it been utilized in the past?

The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:

"Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note the underlined portion, involuntary servitude. To me, this is indicative that all service to the government should be voluntary in nature. Servitude isn't exclusive to slave labor as it is traditionally viewed, but in this context seems to include service to the government in general. With this rudimentary understanding of this particular amendment and my knowledge of the nature of conscription, the two seem unable to coexist and both serve their purpose. If the constitution exists to protect the people from coercive legislation, why have drafts been utilized in the past? If not, what am I missing?

Thoughts? I'm genuinely curious, so please give your input.

In the terms and conditions of being a citizen you are required to kill commies if the government tells you to do it.

Check my sig.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW